Thông tin tài liệu
Functional Requirements for Authority Data A Conceptual Model IFLA Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) Final Report December 2008 Approved by the Standing Committees of the IFLA Cataloguing Section and IFLA Classification and Indexing Section March 2009 As amended and corrected through July 2013 CONTENTS Introduction i Purpose Scope Entity-Relationship Diagram and Definitions 3.1 Entity-Relationship Methodology 3.2 Diagramming Conventions 3.3 Entity-Relationship Diagram 3.4 Entity Definitions Attributes 16 4.1 Attributes of a Person 17 4.2 Attributes of a Family 18 4.3 Attributes of a Corporate Body 19 4.4 Attributes of a Work 20 4.5 Attributes of an Expression 21 4.6 Attributes of a Manifestation 23 4.7 Attributes of an Item 23 4.8 Attributes of a Concept 24 4.9 Attributes of an Object 24 4.10 Attributes of an Event 24 4.11 Attributes of a Place 24 4.12 Attributes of a Name 24 4.13 Attributes of an Identifier 25 4.14 Attributes of a Controlled Access Point 25 4.15 Attributes of Rules 28 4.16 Attributes of an Agency 29 Relationships 30 5.1 Authority Relationships in the Context of the Model 30 5.2 Relationships Depicted in the High-Level Diagrams 30 5.3 Relationships between Persons, Families, Corporate Bodies, and Works 31 5.3.1 Relationships between Persons 32 5.3.2 Relationships between Persons and Families 34 5.3.3 Relationships between Persons and Corporate Bodies 35 5.3.4 Relationships between Families 35 5.3.5 Relationships between Families and Corporate Bodies 35 5.3.6 Relationships between Corporate Bodies 36 5.3.7 Relationships among Works, Expressions, Manifestations and, Items 38 5.4 Relationships between the Various Names of Persons, Families, Corporate Bodies, and Works 40 5.4.1 Relationships between Names of Persons 41 5.4.2 Relationships between Names of Families 42 5.4.3 Relationships between Names of Corporate Bodies 42 5.4.4 Relationships between Names of Works 43 5.5 Relationships between Controlled Access Points 44 User Tasks 46 References Error! Bookmark not defined.52 Index 53 Introduction The Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) was established in April 1999 by the IFLA Division of Bibliographic Control and the IFLA Universal Bibliographic Control and International MARC Programme (UBCIM) Following the end of the UBCIM Programme in 2003, the IFLA-CDNL Alliance for Bibliographic Standards (ICABS) took over joint responsibility for the FRANAR Working Group with the British Library as the responsible body The Working Group has three terms of reference: 1) To define functional requirements of authority records, continuing the work that the “Functional requirements of bibliographic records" for bibliographic systems initiated; 2) To study the feasibility of an International Standard Authority Data Number (ISADN), to define possible use and users, to determine for what types of authority records such an ISADN is necessary, to examine the possible structure of the number and the type of management that would be necessary; 3) To serve as the official IFLA liaison to and work with other interested groups concerning authority files: (Interoperability of Data in E-Commerce Systems), ICA/CDS (International Council on Archives Committee on Descriptive Standards; later, International Council on Archives Committee on Best Practices and Professional Standards), ISO/TC46 for international numbering and descriptive standards, CERL (Consortium of European Research Libraries), etc This document fulfills the first of these terms of reference and represents one portion of the extension and expansion of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records model that was envisioned by the IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records The second term of reference, dealing with numbering, was dealt with by the Working Group in a separate document The third of the terms of reference represents an ongoing task that has produced many valuable contacts, which have enriched this document and other aspects of this group’s work and have provided the opportunity for the group to review a number of other documents about authority data that have been produced during the time of the group’s work Because the Functional Requirements for Authority Data is indeed an extension and expansion of the FRBR model, the Working Group has identified potential improvements to the FRBR model itself as well as to definitions, etc These will be proposed to the IFLA FRBR Review Group for their consideration In addition, the group has identified other IFLA publications relating to authority data that may require revisions Those potential revisions will also be submitted to the relevant groups for consideration The IFLA FRBR Study Group noted the need for further analysis of the “entities that are the centre of focus for subject authorities, thesauri, and classification schemes, and of the relationships between those entities.” While the Working Group has included some aspects of subject authorities in the authorities model, it has not undertaken the full analysis that the FRBR Study Group envisioned Since the FRANAR Working Group began its work, a new working group, Working Group on Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR),1 has been charged with that task March 2009 i Members of the IFLA Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records Franỗoise Bourdon (Chair, 1999-2002) Bibliothốque nationale de France Christina Hengel-Dittrich Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, Germany Olga Lavrenova Russian State Library Andrew MacEwan The British Library Eeva Murtomaa National Library of Finland Glenn E Patton (Chair, 2002-2009) OCLC, USA Henry Snyder University of California, Riverside, USA Barbara Tillett Library of Congress, USA Hartmut Walravens International ISBN Agency, Germany Mirna Willer University of Zadar, Croatia Secretariat Marie-France Plassard (1999-2003) IFLA UBCIM Programme Consultant Tom Delsey Ottawa, Canada (2001-2009) ii Functional Requirements for Authority Data Purpose In libraries, in museums, or in archives, a catalogue is a set of organized data describing the information content managed by an institution Authority data represents the controlled access points and other information that institutions use to collocate works by a specific person, family, or corporate body, or the various editions of a title Controlled access points include authorized forms and variant forms of name assembled by cataloguers to identify an entity For the purposes of this study, only name and title entities are addressed fully; however, subject terms within catalogues are among the other entities commonly subjected to authority control Authority control, which means both the identification of entities represented by controlled access points and the ongoing management of them, is integral to the functioning of a catalogue Authority control is beneficial to cataloguers able to identify and distinguish between the controlled access points within a catalogue More importantly, authority control benefits end users enabling them to search any controlled form of an author’s name or of a title to retrieve bibliographic resources within catalogues The primary purpose of this conceptual model is to provide a framework for the analysis of functional requirements for the kind of authority data that is required to support authority control and for the international sharing of authority data The model focuses on data, regardless of how it may be packaged (e.g., in authority records) More specifically, the conceptual model has been designed to: provide a clearly defined, structured frame of reference for relating the data that are recorded by authority record creators to the needs of the users of that data; assist in an assessment of the potential for international sharing and use of authority data both within the library sector and beyond Scope The functional scope of the study was intentionally limited to the library sector, but the study has been conducted with a view to comparative analysis with other sectors For the purposes of this model, the users of authority data include both the authority data creators who create and maintain authority data and end users who use authority information either through direct access to authority data or indirectly through the controlled access points and reference structures in library catalogues, national bibliographies, etc For the purposes of this study, authority data is defined as the aggregate of information about a person, family, corporate body, or work whose name is used as the basis for a controlled access point for bibliographic citations or for records in a library catalogue or bibliographic database Conventionally, authority data is structured in accordance with guidelines and specifications, such as those set out in IFLA’s Guidelines for Authority Records and References (GARR)2 and/or cataloguing rules In current practice, the authority record normally contains the authorized access point for the entity as established by the cataloguing agency as the default form for displays in its catalogue, as well as access points for variant forms of name and authorized access points for related entities The authority record will also normally include information identifying the rules under which the controlled access points were established, the sources consulted, the cataloguing agency responsible for establishing the controlled access point, etc For the purposes of this study, however, there are no a priori assumptions made about the physical structure of authority data, nor are there any assumptions made as to whether the data are stored in an authority file that is separate from the catalogue or bibliographic file per se, or fully integrated with it At a high level, the conceptual model encompasses authority data of all types The entity relationship diagram (section 3.3) and the entity definitions (section 3.4) are intended to reflect authority data for persons, families, corporate bodies, and geographic entities, or for entities represented in catalogues by title authority data (of the type of titles of work or work/expression and collective titles of works or works/expressions) or creator-title authority data, for subject authority data (subject terms, thesauri terms, and classification indicia), and authority data for various types of names and identifiers (standard numbers, codes, etc.) associated to those entities However, the detailed analysis of entity attributes (section 4) and relationships (section 5) focuses only on library authority data for name controlled access points associated with persons, families, and corporate bodies, and for creator-title and title controlled access points associated with works, expressions, manifestations, and items In those sections, attributes and relationships associated exclusively with other types of authority data (such as subject authority data) are not included Management information that may be maintained as part of authority data, such as version control information or treatment decisions about the management of the resource described by the data, is also not included Entity-Relationship Diagram and Definitions 3.1 Entity-Relationship Methodology The methodology used to build this conceptual model is the same entity analysis technique used in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR)3 As described in section 2.3 of FRBR, the first step is the identification of the key objects that are of interest to users of information in a particular domain Each of these key objects, or entities, then serves as the focal point for a cluster of data A model developed using these techniques also depicts the relationships between one type of entity and another type of entity Once the high-level structure for the model has been laid out by identifying the entities and the relationships between those entities, the next step is to identify the primary characteristics or attributes of each entity At a more detailed level, the model can also depict the relationships that may exist between instances of entities The entity-relationship model described in the following section has been used in this study to assess the relevance of each attribute and relationship to the set of user tasks defined later in this document Entity versus Attribute: In designing any conceptual model, a key decision involves whether to make something an attribute or a separate entity The outcome of this decision depends on the future use that is to be made of the attribute or entity The developers of the FRBR model saw significant advantages in declaring persons and corporate bodies to be separate entities that could then be related to the other entities laid out in that model Cataloguers have traditionally thought of controlling the names for persons and corporate bodies through authority data Declaring persons and corporate bodies as entities enables much more flexibility in the controlled naming and eliminates redundancies that would occur if they were modeled as attributes The names for these entities can then be controlled in an authority record and linked to other authority records or to bibliographic records or holdings records as needed The FRBR decision to treat these as entities rather than as attributes has been carried over into this conceptual model of authority data In addition, in this model, declaring names and identifiers as entities allows more clarity in showing the relationships between the entities on which authority data are focused and the names and/or identifiers by which those entities are known and on which the controlled access points for those entities will be based 3.2 Diagramming Conventions A rectangle represents an entity (i.e., an object of interest to users of authority data) A dotted-line rectangle surrounding a group of two or more entities indicates that a relationship represented by an arrow contiguous with the dotted line may apply to any and/or all of the entities represented within the rectangle A single-headed arrow on a line represents a relationship in which any given instance of the entity at the opposite end of the line may be associated with only one instance of the entity to which the arrow is pointing A double-headed arrow on a line represents a relationship in which any given instance of the entity at the opposite end of the line may be associated with one or more instances of the entity to which the arrow is pointing 3.3 Entity-Relationship Diagram The fundamental basis for the conceptual model is illustrated in Figure The model can be simply described as follows: Entities in the bibliographic universe (such as those identified in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) are known by names and/or identifiers In the cataloguing process (whether it happens in libraries, museums, or archives), those names and identifiers are used as the basis for constructing controlled access points Bibliographic Entities known by Names and/or Identifiers basis for Controlled Access Points Figure 1: Fundamental Basis for the Conceptual Model A fuller form of the conceptual model for authority data is presented graphically in the diagram in Figure The entities depicted in the diagram are defined in section 3.4 Entities: The entities depicted in the diagram represent the key objects of interest to the users of authority data The resulting diagram represents a model of the relationships between those entities, not a model for an authority record, which is a specific application of authority data The entities on which authority data are focused (i.e., the ten entities defined in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records — person, corporate body, work, expression, manifestation, item, concept, object, event, and place — plus one additional entity — family) are depicted in the upper part of the diagram The lower part of the diagram depicts the names by which those entities are known, the identifiers assigned to the entities, and the controlled access points based on those names and identifiers that are registered as authority data The diagram also highlights two entities that are instrumental in determining the content and form of access points—rules and agency It is essential to note that the entities depicted in the upper part of the diagram (person, family, corporate body, work, expression, manifestation, item, concept, object, event, and place) are bibliographic entities As such, they reflect intellectual constructs or concepts that are integral to the rules used to create library catalogues, and what is perceived as a specific instance of a particular entity type may vary from one set of rules to another Under some cataloguing rules, for example, authors are uniformly viewed as real individuals, and consequently specific instances of the bibliographic entity person always correspond to individuals Under other cataloguing rules, however, authors may be viewed in certain circumstances as establishing more than one bibliographic identity, and in that case a specific The relationship between the work known as The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare and the work known as Incidental Music for Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice by John Harbison Sequential relationship The relationship between one work and another of different content that is a successor or a predecessor of that work (e.g., a sequel, a serial or series that has changed title) This excludes derivative works that modify the content of an earlier work (see Derivative relationship above) This type of relationship, known as a “chronological relationship”, is usually expressed in bibliographic data through an authorized access point for the prequel and/or sequel and/or a note, or in authority data through a see also reference and/or an information note or cataloguer’s note It could be indicated through the labelling of the authorized access point for the related works within an authority record for the “family of works.” Example The relationship between the work known as the Treaty of Amiens and an earlier treaty signed by Britain, France, Spain and the Batavian Republic, on which the former was based The relationship between the work Historical dictionaries of Africa and the same work later known as African historical dictionaries Shared characteristic relationship The relationship between two works/expressions/manifestations/items that have some characteristic in common, apart from any of the other relationships (e.g., same language, same color binding, same publisher, same date of issuance) This type of relationship is expressed through the common access point or attribute in bibliographic or authority data for the entities involved 5.4 Relationships between the Various Names of Persons, Families, Corporate Bodies, and Works Within authority data, there are also a number of other relationship types that operate between specific instances of the entity name and other related names for the entities depicted in the upper part of Figure (person, family, corporate body, work, expression, manifestation, item, concept, object, event, and place) Relationships in this category are normally reflected implicitly as name to name relationships by means of a “see” reference from a variant form to the authorized form of name or by means of “see also” references between related authorized forms of name for two or more related entities Table highlights relationship types that operate between a specific instance of a name for a person, family, corporate body, or work and other names for that entity The relationship types identified in the table are intended to be representative only, and not aim to provide an exhaustive taxonomy of relationships in this category that may be reflected in authority data It is recognized that specific applications will select relationships important to the application, so there also is no intention to make these relationships mandatory or optional (Note that relationships in this category specific to subject authority data are not included in the table.) 40 Definitions and examples for each of the relationship types identified in Table are given below in sections 5.4.1 – 5.4.4 Table 2: Relationships between the Various Names of Persons, Families, Corporate Bodies, and Works Entity Type Name of Person Name of Person Sample Relationship Types earlier name relationship later name relationship alternative linguistic form relationship other variant name relationships Name of Family Name of Family alternative linguistic form relationship Name of Corporate Body Name of Corporate Body expanded name relationship acronym / initials / abbreviations relationship alternative linguistic form relationship other variant name relationships alternative linguistic form relationship conventional name relationship other variant name relationships Name of Work Name of Work 5.4.1 Relationships between Names of Persons Earlier name relationship The relationship between a name of a person and a name that person used at an earlier stage in life Examples The relationship between a name of a person who was made Earl of Beaconsfield, thus acquiring the name “Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield” and that person’s earlier name, “Benjamin Disraeli” The relationship between a name of a person who married a Mr Nichols, thus acquiring the name “Charlotte Nichols” and that person’s earlier name, “Charlotte Bronte” Later name relationship The relationship between a name of a person and a name that person used at a later stage in life Examples The relationship between a name of a person who was first known as “Jacques-Anatole Thibeault” and that person’s later name, “Anatole France” 41 The relationship between a name of a person whose name prior to marrying Robert Browning was “Elizabeth Barrett” and that person’s later name, “Elizabeth Barrett Browning” Alternative linguistic form relationship The relationship between a name of a person and an alternative linguistic form of name by which that person is known This includes translations of a name into other languages Example The relationship between the names of a person known as Horace in English and Quintus Horatius Flaccus in Latin Other variant name relationships The relationship between a name of a person and several other variations on a name, such as orthographic relationships (spelling variations, transliterations, punctuation variations, capitalization variations), word order relationships (inversions, permutations), alternative name/synonym relationships (bynames, nicknames, courtesy names) For some purposes it may be sufficient to simply identify all of these as “variant forms” of name for a person and to link them to the preferred form of name for the name of the person Examples The relationship between the name of the person known as “Babe Ruth” and two other names by which that person is known, “Bambino” and “Sultan of Swat” 5.4.2 Relationships between Names of Families Alternative linguistic form relationship The relationship between a name of a family and an alternative linguistic form of name by which that family is known Example The relationship between the names of the family known as Familie Trapp in German and Tappin perhe in Finnish 5.4.3 Relationships between Names of Corporate Bodies Expanded name relationship The relationship between a name of a corporate body and the expanded form of name by which that body is known Example The relationship between the name of the corporate body know as Abdib and the expanded form of that name, Associaỗóo Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento das Industrias de Base 42 Acronym / initials / abbreviations relationship The relationship between a name of a corporate body and an acronym or initials or an abbreviation by which that body is known Example The relationship between the name of a corporate body known as the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund and initialized form of that name, UNICEF Alternative linguistic form relationship The relationship between a name of a corporate body and an alternative linguistic form of name by which that body is known This includes translations of the name for the corporate body Example The relationship between the names of the corporate body known as United Nations in English, Nations Unies in French and Организация Объединённых Наций in Russian Other variant name relationships The relationship between a name of a corporate body and a name by which that body is known, such as orthographic relationships (spelling variations, transliterations, punctuation variations, capitalization variations), word order relationships (inversions, permutations) Examples The relationship between the name of the corporate body known as Women of Color Quilters Network and a spelling variant of that name, Women of Colour Quilters Network 5.4.4 Relationships between Names of Works Alternative linguistic form relationship The relationship between a name of a work and an alternative linguistic form of name by which that work is known Example The relationship between the names of the work known as Pentekostárion in transliterated Greek and Pentecostaire in French Conventional name relationship The relationship between a name of a work and a conventional name by which that work is known Example The relationship between the Beethoven symphony known as “Eroica” and the conventional title by which it is also known “Symphonies, no 3, op 55, E♭ major” Other variant name relationships The relationship between a name of a work and a name by which that work is known, such as orthographic relationships (spelling variations, transliterations, punctuation variations, 43 capitalization variations), word order relationships (inversions, permutations), variant title relationships (titles for the work based on titles found on manifestations or items, including cover title, spine title, caption title, container title, parallel title) Examples The relationship between the names of the work known as Hamlet by William Shakespeare and the name that appears on some publications, Tragicall Historie of Hamlet Prince of Denmarke The relationship between the names of the work known as Honour This Day by Alexander Kent and the spelling variant of the name that appears on some publications, Honor This Day 5.5 Relationships between Controlled Access Points Within authority data there are also a number of other relationship types that operate between specific instances of the entity controlled access point (i.e., between one access point and another, as distinct from relationships involving only the name or identifier that forms the basis for the controlled access point) Relationships in this category may be made explicit by means of linking devices, such as linking fields and control subfields (e.g., a link between alternate script representations of the same controlled access point) The relationships between controlled access points most commonly reflected in linking structure mechanisms are parallel language relationships, alternate script relationships, and different rules relationships Additional relationships exist between controlled access points for the names of the bibliographic entities and access points for the corresponding classification number or subject term for the same entity Further links can also provide relationships to the digitized version of an entity through relating the name access point with the entity’s identifier Table 3: Relationships between Controlled Access Points Entity Type Relationship Type Controlled Access Point Controlled Access Point Parallel language relationship Alternate script relationship Different rules relationship Name/corresponding subject term or classification number relationship Name/identifier relationship Definitions and examples for each of those relationship types are given below Parallel language relationship The relationship between two or more controlled access points that are established as parallel language forms of access point for the authorized forms of name for the same entity Example 44 The relationship between the controlled access point, Library and Archives Canada, as established in English, and the controlled access point, Bibliothèque et archives Canada, as established in French Alternate script relationship The relationship between two or more controlled access points that are established as alternate script forms of the access point for the authorized forms of name for the same entity Example The relationship between the controlled access point, Gogol, Nikolai Vasilievitch, expressed in roman alphabet, and the controlled access point, Гоголь, Николай Васильевич, expressed in Cyrillic alphabet Different rules relationship The relationship between two or more controlled access points for the authorized forms of name for the same entity that have been established according to different sets of rules Example The relationship between the controlled access point, Russia (Federation), established under one set of cataloguing rules, and the controlled access point, Российская Федерация, established under a different set of cataloguing rules Controlled access point/Corresponding subject term or classification number relationship The relationship between the controlled access point for the name of an entity (for a person, family, corporate body, work, expression, manifestation, item, concept, object, event, place) and a subject term in a controlled vocabulary, and/or a classification number for that entity Here the subject term and the classification number may also be viewed as parallel names/identifiers for the name of the same entity Example The relationship between the authorized access point, Library education, established according to Library of Congress Subject Headings practice, and the related Dewey Decimal Classification number, 020.7 The relationship between the authorized access point, Gautama Buddha, as established according to AACR2, the authorized access point, Gautama Buddha, as established according to Library of Congress Subject Headings practice, and/or the related Library of Congress Classification number, BQ860-939 Controlled access point/Identifier relationship The relationship between the controlled access point for an entity expressed as an access point based on the authorized or variant form of name of the entity as related to an identifier for the entity Example The relationship between the controlled access point, Advances in the history of rhetoric (Online), and the Linking ISSN for that work, 1536-2426 45 User Tasks For the purposes of this analysis, the users of authority data are broadly defined to include: authority data creators who create and maintain authority data; users who use authority information either through direct access to authority data or indirectly through the controlled access points (authorized forms of name, variant forms of name/references, etc.) in catalogues, national bibliographies, other similar databases, etc Four tasks representing all users are defined as follows: Find Find an entity or set of entities corresponding to stated criteria (i.e., to find either a single entity or a set of entities using an attribute or combination of attributes or a relationship of the entity as the search criteria); or to explore the universe of bibliographic entities using those attributes and relationships Identify Identify an entity (i.e., to confirm that the entity represented corresponds to the entity sought, to distinguish between two or more entities with similar characteristics) or to validate the form of name to be used for a controlled access point Contextualize Place a person, corporate body, work, etc., in context; clarify the relationship between two or more persons, corporate bodies, works, etc.; or clarify the relationship between a person, corporate body, etc., and a name by which that person, corporate body, etc., is known (e.g., name used in religion versus secular name) Justify Document the authority data creator’s reason for choosing the name or form of name on which a controlled access point is based Table maps the attributes and relationships defined in sections and to the defined set of user tasks The mapping is intended to serve as a means of clarifying the specific user task(s) that data associated with each attribute or relationship defined in the model are designed to support For the purposes of this conceptual model, all potential uses of data associated with a particular attribute or relationship are identified There has been no attempt to assess or indicate the relative importance of each attribute or relationship to a given user task as was done in the FRBR model Designations of which attributes and relationships are considered mandatory need to be determined on an application-specific basis Note: For the purposes of this study only attributes normally reflected in controlled access points are mapped against the FIND task The capability of conducting keyword searching on other data in the record is not taken into account If it were, virtually any attribute could be mapped to FIND 46 Table 4: Mapping of Attributes and Relationships to User Tasks F I N D Entity Attribute/Relationship Person “Has appellation/is appellation of” relationship name “Assigned” relationship identifier Dates of person I D E N T I F Y J U S T I F Y Title of person C O N T E X T U A L I Z E Gender* Place of birth* Place of death* Country* Place of residence* Affiliation* Address* Language of person* Field of activity* Profession/occupation* Biography/history* Other information elements associated with the person Pseudonymous relationship person* Secular relationship person* Religious relationship person* Official relationship person* Attributive relationship person* Collaborative relationship person* Sibling relationship person* Parent/child relationship person* Membership relationship family* Membership relationship corporate body* Earlier name relationship name of person* Later name relationship name of person* Alternative linguistic form relationship name of person* Other variant name relationship name of person* 47 F I N D I D E N T I F Y C O N T E X T U A L I Z E Entity Attribute/Relationship Family “Has appellation/is appellation of” relationship name* “Assigned/is assigned to” relationship identifier* Type of family* Dates of family* Places associated with family* Language of family* Field of activity* History of family* Genealogical relationship family Corporate Body Ownership relationship corporate body* Alternative linguistic form relationship name of family* “Has appellation/is appellation of” relationship name “Assigned/is assigned to” relationship identifier Place associated with the corporate body Date associated with the corporate body Language of the corporate body* Address* Field of activity* History* Work Founding relationship corporate body* Other information associated with the corporate body Hierarchical relationship corporate body* Sequential relationship corporate body* Expanded name relationship name of corporate body* Acronym / initials / abbreviations relationship name of corporate body* Alternative linguistic form relationship name of corporate body* Other variant name relationship name of corporate body* “Has appellation/is appellation of” relationship name “Assigned/is assigned to” relationship identifier Form of work Date of the work Medium of performance Subject of the work* 48 J U S T I F Y Entity F I N D I D E N T I F Y Numeric designation Key Attribute/Relationship History Derivative relationship work* Descriptive relationship work* Whole/part relationship work Accompanying (part-to-part) relationship work* Sequential relationship work* Shared characteristic relationship work* Alternative linguistic form relationship name of work* Conventional name relationship name of work* Other variant name relationship name of work* “Has appellation/is appellation of” relationship name “Assigned/is assigned to” relationship identifier Form of expression Date of expression Medium of performance of expression Language of expression Technique Item Equivalence relationship work Manifestation J U S T I F Y Place of origin of the work* Other distinguishing characteristic Expression C O N T E X T U A L I Z E Other distinguishing characteristic “Has appellation/is appellation of” relationship name “Assigned/is assigned to” relationship identifier Edition/issue designation Place of publication/ distribution Publisher/distributor Date of publication/distribution Form of carrier Numbering “Has appellation/is appellation of” relationship name 49 F I N D Entity Attribute/Relationship “Assigned/is assigned to” relationship identifier Concept Object Event Place Name Identifier Controlled Access Point I D E N T I F Y C O N T E X T U A L I Z E Location of item* Custodial history of item Immediate source of acquisition of item “Has appellation/is appellation of” relationship name “Assigned/is assigned to” relationship identifier “Has appellation/is appellation of” relationship name “Assigned/is assigned to” relationship identifier “Has appellation/is appellation of” relationship name “Assigned/is assigned to” relationship identifier “Has appellation/is appellation of” relationship name “Assigned/is assigned to” relationship identifier Type of name Name string Scope of usage Dates of usage Language of name Script of name Transliteration scheme of name “Is basis for/is based on” relationship controlled access point Type of identifier “Is basis for/is based on” relationship controlled access point Type of controlled access point Status of controlled access point for the preferred form Designated usage of controlled access point 50 J U S T I F Y F I N D Entity Attribute/Relationship I D E N T I F Y Undifferentiated access point Language of base access point Language of cataloguing Script of base access point Script of cataloguing Transliteration scheme of base access point Transliteration scheme of cataloguing Source of controlled access point Base access point Addition “Is governed by/governs” relationship rules “Is created/modified by/creates/modifies” relationship agency Parallel language relationship controlled access point for the authorized form Alternate script relationship controlled access point for the authorized form Different rules relationship controlled access point for the authorized form Controlled access point/Corresponding subject term or classification number relationship controlled access point Controlled access point/Identifier relationship controlled access point Rules Citation for rules Rules identifier Name of agency Agency identifier Location of agency 51 J U S T I F Y “Are applied by/applies” relationship agency Agency C O N T E X T U A L I Z E References Working Group – Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR) http://www.ifla.org/node/5849 (accessed July 29, 2103) Guidelines for authority records and references / revised by the Working Group on GARE Revision Second edition München : K.G Saur, 2001 Functional requirements for bibliographic records : final report / IFLA Study group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records München : K.G Saur, 1998 Statement of international cataloguing principles 2009 http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/icp/icp_2009-en.pdf (accessed July 29,2013) UNIMARC manual - authorities format 2nd revised and enlarged edition München : K.G Saur, 2001 www.ifla.org/files/uca/unimarc-authorities-format.pdf (accessed July 29, 2013) (Note: This on-line version includes corrections made in 2004.) Mandatory data elements for internationally shared resource authority records : report of the IFLA UBCIM Working Group on Minimal Level Authority Records and ISADN Frankfurt am Main, 1998 http://archive.ifla.org/VI/3/p1996-2/mlar.htm (accessed July 29, 2013) International standard archival authority record for corporate bodies, persons and families 2nd edition April 2004 www.icacds.org.uk/eng/isaar2ndedn-e_3_1.pdf (accessed July 29 2013) Encoded archival context November 2004 www.iath.virginia.edu/eac/ (accessed July 29 2013) Based on Tillett, Barbara B “Bibliographic Relationships,” in C.A Bean and R Green (eds.), Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001, p 19-35 52 Index This index covers only terms used for the entities, attributes and relationships defined in this model The page number following the term indicates the page on which the term is defined Accompanying relationship (Part-to-Part) 39 Acronym/initials/abbreviations relationship 43 Addition 27 Address (Corporate Body) 19 Address (Person) 18 Affiliation 17 Agency 15 Agency identifier 29 Alternate script relationship 45 Alternative linguistic form relationship (Names of Corporate Bodies) 43 Alternative linguistic form relationship (Names of Families) 42 Alternative linguistic form relationship (Names of Persons) 42 Alternative linguistic form relationship (Names of Works) 43 Attributive relationship 33 Base access point 27 Biography/history 18 Citation for rules 28 Collaborative relationship 33 Concept 11 Controlled Access Point 14 Controlled access point/Corresponding subject term or classification number relationship 45 Controlled access point/Identifier relationship 45 Conventional name relationship 43 Corporate Body Country 17 Date associated with the corporate body 19 Date of expression 22 Date of publication/distribution 23 Date of the work 20 Dates associated with the person 17 Dates of family 18 Dates of usage 25 Derivative relationship 38 Descriptive relationship 39 Designated usage of controlled access point 26 Different rules relationship 45 Earlier name relationship 41 Edition/issue designation 23 Equivalence relationship 38 Event 11 Expanded name relationship 42 Expression 10 Family Field of activity (Corporate Body) 20 Field of activity (Person) 18 Form of carrier 23 Form of expression 21 Form of work 20 Gender 17 Genealogical relationship 35 Hierarchical relationship 36 History (Corporate Body) 20 History (Work) 21 History of family 19 Identifier 14 Item 11 Key 21 Language of base access point 26 Language of cataloguing 26 Language of expression 22 Language of name 25 Language of person 18 Language of the corporate body 19 Later name relationship 41 Location of agency 29 Location of item 23 Manifestation 10 Medium of performance 20 Membership relationship (Persons and Corporate Bodies 34 Membership relationship (Persons and Families) 35 Name 12 Name of agency 29 Numbering 23 Numeric designation 21 Object 11 Official relationship 33 Other information associated with the corporate body 20 Other information elements associated with the person 18 Other distinguishing characteristic (Expression) 22 Other distinguishing characteristic (Work) 21 Other variant name relationships (Names of Corporate Bodies) 43 Other variant name relationships (Names of Persons) 42 Other variant name relationships (Names of Works) 43 Parallel language relationship 44 Parent/Child relationship 34 Person Place associated with the corporate body 19 Place of birth 17 Place of death 17 Place of origin of the work 21 Place of publication/distribution 23 Place of residence 17 Places associated with family 18 Profession/occupation 19 Pseudonymous relationship (Persons) 32 Publisher/distributor 23 Religious relationship 33 Rules 15 Rules identifier 28 53 Scope of usage Script of base access point Script of cataloguing Script of name Secular relationship Sequential relationship (Corporate Bodies) Sequential relationship (Works) Shared characteristic relationship Sibling relationship Source of controlled access point Status of controlled access point Subject of the work Technique Title of person Transliteration scheme of base access point Transliteration scheme of cataloguing Transliteration scheme of name Type of controlled access point Type of family Type of identifier Type of name Undifferentiated access point Whole/part relationship Work 25 26 26 25 32 37 40 40 33 26 25 21 54 22 17 26 26 25 25 18 25 24 26 39 ... CONTENTS Introduction i Purpose Scope Entity-Relationship Diagram and Definitions 3.1 Entity-Relationship Methodology 3.2 Diagramming Conventions 3.3 Entity-Relationship Diagram 3.4 Entity Definitions... Willer University of Zadar, Croatia Secretariat Marie-France Plassard (199 9-2 003) IFLA UBCIM Programme Consultant Tom Delsey Ottawa, Canada (200 1-2 009) ii Functional Requirements for Authority Data... Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records Franỗoise Bourdon (Chair, 199 9-2 002) Bibliothốque nationale de France Christina Hengel-Dittrich Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, Germany Olga Lavrenova Russian
Ngày đăng: 15/12/2017, 17:07
Xem thêm:
